On one hand, I think this is a great change for teams. More chances to present = more chances at winning, better practice for the presenters & lesser chance of judge biasing per region/past winners. I think it will result in a much better pool of RCA winners to present at the Championship, and I like the idea of strengthening the RCA pool.
On the other hand THIS:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfreivald
One thing I'm leery of is the demand on judges!
|
Being involved in a brand new district, I was already worried that we may struggle to find volunteers and qualified judges... now at the qualifier event level, there is potential of needing 6+ RCA judges at each event just to be able to cram all of the presentations into one day. In a district with 9 events that means potentially recruiting 27 additional Judges... or taking time away from interviewing teams for other awards. And more judges means more cost to events - food and shirts at the very least. I'm certain everyone will find a way to make it work, but its going to add just a bit more to an already strained volunteer system across the globe.
I really hope they took the time to talk with a lot of the Judge Coordinators/Judge Advisors before implementing this. I would guess that they have, but I didn't seen any reference in Frank's post to how they would handle the extra work placed on the event committees & volunteers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH
Something that I would like to see in Chairman's, or even in EI, though I doubt it will be (come on, Frank, prove me wrong!) is for teams to be officially able to "upvote" another team, especially if the team doing the "upvoting" has already won at that level in that year, or is in the HoF.
|
Creative teams have already taken this opportunity. Many teams leave the judges with packets. Those packets can include letters of support from other teams. It's not an official request system, but it has already been done.
Personally I'm not sure I'm a big fan of a "system" that allows teams to vote/promote RCA winners, as I think it will end up a popularity contest and you will see more lobbying and coercion and competitive mindset than you do now. I get the idea that if other teams are backing this team, it makes it more likely that that team has legitimately done all that they say they did, but I'm not sure a voting system is really the right way to gather input.